Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Transfer payments in global climate policy

Nature Climate Change volume 2, pages 628–633 (2012)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Many scientists and policymakers agree that large financial flows from richer to poorer countries will be necessary to reach an agreement on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions enough to keep global warming below 2 °C. But the required amounts of transfer payments and justifications for them remain contested. We contribute to this debate by developing an argument for transfer payments that derives from the differences between carbon prices that different countries may set in light of two distinct criteria for appropriate levels of emission reductions. If, for reasons of cost efficiency, a globally uniform carbon price was installed, transfer payments would be required to offset these differences. We combine global climate modelling with regional welfare analysis to estimate regional carbon prices under various climate change, emissions and economic scenarios. The estimated ratios between regional carbon prices are surprisingly robust to different modelling assumptions. To the extent that burden-sharing choices in global climate policy are motivated by regional carbon prices, our analysis allows for a quantification of required transfer payments. Assuming a global carbon price of US$35 per t CO2, for example, our estimates would justify transfer payments of the order of US$15–48 billion per year.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Sensitivity of price ratios to scenarios and discounting parameters (liability criterion).
Figure 2: Transfer payments depending on scenarios and discounting parameters (liability criterion).

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rogelj, J. et al. Copenhagen accord pledges are paltry. Nature 464, 1126–1128 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Liu, J. & Diamond, J. China’s environment in a globalizing world. Nature 435, 1179–1186 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Seligsohn, D., Heilmayr, R., Tan, X. & Weischer, L. China, the United States, and the Climate Change Challenge WRI Policy Brief (World ResourceInstitute, 2009).

  4. Dellink, R. et al. Sharing the burden of financing adaptation to climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 19, 411–421 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ott, H. E., Sterk, W. & Watanabe, R. The Bali roadmap: New horizons for global climate policy. Clim. Policy 8, 91–95 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cozier, M. Restoring confidence at the Cancun climate change conference. Greenhouse Gases: Sci. Technol. 1, 8–10 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Anthoff, D. & Tol, R. S. On international equity weights and national decision making on climate change. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 60, 14–20 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Füssel, H. How inequitable is the global distribution of responsibility, capability, and vulnerability to climate change: A comprehensive indicator-based assessment. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 597–611 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tol, R. S. J. & Verheyen, R. State responsibility and compensation for climate change damages—a legal and economic assessment. Energ. Policy 32, 1109–1130 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. den Elzen, M. et al. Analysing countries’ contribution to climate change: Scientific and policy-related choices. Environ. Sci. Policy 8, 614–636 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Trudinger, C. & Enting, I. Comparison of formalisms for attributing responsibility for climate change: Non-linearities in the Brazilian proposal approach. Climatic Change 68, 67–99 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nordhaus, W. D. To tax or not to tax: Alternative approaches to slowing global warming. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 1, 26–44 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Barrett, S. Environment and Statecraft: The Strategy of Environmental Treaty-Making (Oxford Univ. Press, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nakicenovic, N. & Swart, R. (eds) IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).

  15. Yohe, G. W. et al. in IPCC Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (eds Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., van der Linden, P. J. & Hanson, C. E.) 811–841 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dasgupta, P. Discounting climate change. J. Risk Uncertainty 37, 141–169 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Committee on Climate Change Meeting Carbon Budgets—The Need for a Step Change Progress Report to Parliament (2009).

  18. Rebelo, S. Growth in open economies. Carnegie–Rochester Conf. Ser. Public Policy 36, 5–46 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ogaki, M., Ostry, J. D. & Reinhart, C. M. Saving behavior in low- and middle-income developing countries: A comparison. Int. Monet. Fund S. Pap. 43, 38–71 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cline, W. R. The Economics of Global Warming (Peterson Institute, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Nordhaus, W. D. Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate Change (MIT Press, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Stern, N. H. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Evans, D. J. & Sezer, H. Social discount rates for six major countries. Appl. Econ. Lett. 11, 557–560 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Guvenen, F. Reconciling conflicting evidence on the elasticity of intertemporal substitution: A macroeconomic perspective. J. Monetary Econ. 53, 1451–1472 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nordhaus, W. D. A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies (Yale Univ. Press, 2008).

  26. Joos, F., Müller-Fürstenberger, G. & Stephan, G. Correcting the carbon cycle representation: How important is it for the economics of climate change? Environ. Model. Assess. 4, 133–140 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Joos, F. et al. Global warming feedbacks on terrestrial carbon uptake under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emission scenarios. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 15, 891–908 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Knutti, R. & Hegerl, G. C. The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes. Nature Geosci. 1, 735–743 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Tanaka, K. et al. Aggregated Carbon Cycle, Atmospheric Chemistry, and Climate Model (ACC2)—Description of the Forward and Inverse Modes Tech. Rep. 40 (Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, 2007).

  30. Füssel, H. Modeling impacts and adaptation in global IAMs. WIREs Clim. Change 1, 288–303 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Manne, A. & Richels, R. Energy and Environment 175–189 (Springer, 2005).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Yang, Z. & Nordhaus, W. D. Magnitude and direction of technological transfers for mitigating GHG emissions. Energ. Econ. 28, 730–741 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bosetti, V., Carraro, C., Galeotti, M., Massetti, E. & Tavoni, M. A world induced technical change hybrid model. Energy J. 27, 13–37 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Böhringer, C., Hoffmann, T. & Manrique-de-Lara-Peñate, C. The efficiency costs of separating carbon markets under the EU emissions trading scheme: A quantitative assessment for Germany. Energ. Econ. 28, 44–61 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Badri, N. G. & Walmsley, T. L. Global Trade, Assistance, and Production: The GTAP 7 Data Base (Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue Univ., 2008).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to C. Böhringer, F. Joos, and T. Rutherford for comments and support. C. Böhringer kindly provided us with estimates of marginal abatement-cost curves and F. Joos supplied us with a version of the BERNCC climate model and instructed us on how to run it.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ETH Zürich, Centre for Energy Policy and Economics (CEPE), ZUE E1, Zürichbergstrasse 18, CH-8032, Zürich

    Florian Landis

  2. ETH Zürich, Center for Comparative and International Studies (CIS) and Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), IFW C45.1, Haldeneggsteig 4, CH-8092, Zürich

    Thomas Bernauer

Authors
  1. Florian Landis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Bernauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

F.L. carried out the climate modelling and economic computations. T.B. and F.L. developed the research idea and main concepts and jointly wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florian Landis.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Landis, F., Bernauer, T. Transfer payments in global climate policy. Nature Clim Change 2, 628–633 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1548

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1548

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing